Hours away from buying a used 16-35L II

[barrett14]

So in two hours I am meeting someone to buy a used 16-35L II (for 1300) but I just read the rumor about the 14-24... I am guessing this is pretty much going to replace the 16-35 II and destroy the resale value I was hoping to keep... I wonder how credible the source is on that one =/

Thoughts?

 

[Haydn1971]

Buy the 16-35mm, enjoy, upgrade in a few years... What do you lose ? Maybe a few $100, but you have had the lens for a couple of years.

It's not like there will be any second hand 14-24mm lenses out there next week ?

 

[RustyTheGeek]

Buy it and use it!! Don't try to guess the market, just concentrate on your craft and let the chips fall where they may. The 16-35mm L lens is one of Canon's all time best lenses ever made. You can't go wrong. Buy it and go create thousands of images you otherwise wouldn't have in the time it takes for the 14-24 to eventually arrive. For all we know the 14-24 may never arrive or it will take a lot longer than expected. The 14-24 will also have its own personality and who knows how the images will look. It won't look like a 16-35, that's for sure!

For these reasons along with others, I doubt the 14-24 will affect the resale value of the 16-35 much anyway. I personally have the 16-35mm-vI lens and I prefer it over the newer vII. The resale value on the vI lens is still as high as the vII because a lot of other shooters still prefer the vI over the vII as well.

Hope it all turns out great for you. Have fun!

Rusty

 

[Loswr]

Hope I'm not too late. DON'T DO IT!! We all know with absolute certainty that the Canon 14-24mm f/2.8L IS will be available in just a matter of days, since it's a typical stealth Canon launch and retailers already have stock in their back rooms. When the new lens comes out, it will instantly make all the pictures you'll ever take with the 16-35mm f/2.8L II turn into absolute crap. So, by all means, don't buy that lens...



Okay, seriously, it's a very good lens - provided you're sure it's the focal length you want/need, and you need f/2.8. Hopefully, you're using it on a FF body - else, there are many better options to consider. On FF, stopped down to f/8 or so, the 17-40mm f/4L delivers IQ that's on par with the 16-35mm II, and the 17-40mm is substantially less expensive, and uses more common 77mm filters instead of the 82mm variety. Don't downplay that too much - true, a CPL will result in uneven polarization of skies wider than 24mm (on FF), but if you need the lens to be weather-sealed, that means a UV/celar filter is necessary. I'd really like a screw-in 10-stop ND for my 16-35mm II (and my TS-E 24mm II), but there just isn't one.

Enjoy the lens!

 

[willhuff.net]

Are people speculating that the 14-24 will produce better image quality?
It is a shorter zoom range so I would guess yes.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Are people speculating that the 14-24 will produce better image quality?
It is a shorter zoom range so I would guess yes.

One thing that has been consistent with Canon is that the new lenses are better and sharper than the lens they replace, so its a bit more than speculation that any new Canon lens will be a improvement. It will also carry a higher price tag.

 

[dr croubie]

Why bother buying one? wait until the riots spread to your city then go loot the nearest shop like every other idiot is doing... :

as for the 14-24, i'm guessing a fair bit of barelling at 14mm, better IQ vs the 16-35 at f/2.8, hopefully they'll solve the curved plane of focus (making it extend/retract the right way would probably help there), and the price will be a lot more than the 16-35 is new now.

go get the 2nd hand one now, and use it for the year it'll take for any 14-24 gets announced, let alone released.
dont worry about resale value, it'll hold up there until the 16-35 v3 comes out, which will come out a lot higher priced than 16-35 v2 is now, so you'll probably get your money back give or take a hundred or two...